This special New Mandala interview will be published in two parts. The first part highlights his banned book on the 2006 coup, lese majeste and the role of the king in Thai society. In the longer second part, which is published here, Giles talks about Thaksin, the red-shirt movement and the People’s Alliance for Democracy, alongside some more personal reflections on academic work and his own family history.

Book, Manifesto, Lese Majeste

New Mandala:What motivated you to write A Coup for the Rich Most Thai academics would never have taken on a project of this sort. Why did you?”

Professor Giles Ungpakorn: I wrote the book because, in September 2006, the military staged the coup, destroying Thai democracy. It was a shock to a lot of people because we believed that Thai democracy had developed, and that we would not be going back to the bad old days. One of the problems was that the military claimed their legitimacy from the palace. Their soldiers had the yellow ribbon; they claimed that they were doing it for the King. A lot of the media in Thailand was very pro-coup, and so were a lot of academics. Therefore, I thought it was necessary to look at the other side of the story, and to argue that the Thaksin government could have been removed through democratic means, through campaigning within the democratic system and within the constitution. That’s primarily what motivated me to write the book.

New Mandala:When you wrote the book did you expect that somehow, somewhere it would land you in trouble with the lese majeste law?

Professor Giles Ungpakorn: No, I did not. Because I was writing a description of what happened, and because I was raising genuine question about the whole roles of institutions in Thailand; the issue of democracy and the role of a constitutional monarchy. Moreover, I was quite careful in writing. I think this charge against me really has nothing to do with insulting the monarchy, because lese majeste is now being used to silence critics of the military and the Democrat Party government.

New Mandala:What motivated you to write the Red Manifesto? What impact did you expect from it?

Professor Giles Ungpakorn: Well, when I returned to Thailand after spending Christmas with my son in Oxford, and found the summons from the police and the charge of lese majeste, I felt that it was an injustice. It was a destruction of academic freedom and freedom of speech. I decided to start a political campaign for freedom of speech and democracy, and this involved contacting people both inside and outside Thailand.

In terms of the people inside Thailand, the most receptive groups to the need to campaign for democracy were the small group of people who have opposed the coup from the beginning, and a large number of people who regard themselves as Red Shirts, especially self-organised groups of Red Shirts. I thought the campaign is also a petition to defend all the people who had been accused of lese majeste, not just myself. We got a fantastic response, and I was able to attend the Red Shirts’ rally at Sanam Luang. Jakkapob Penkair invited me onto the stage where I was able to address 30,000 people. Two or three days later, I was invited to Ubon Rajathani University, where 500 people came to listen to my speech. So, as the time progressed, I realised from talking to a number of people, including my lawyer, who suggested me that it was unlikely for me to get a fair trial. And that it was necessary for me to leave the country. But I was not going to leave the country with my tail between my legs, I was not going to run away. Once, I left the country, I decided to fight back without any restriction. I wrote the notes of the Manifesto on the airplane I flew from Bangkok to London.

I was able to connect with all the people I have got to know in those few days. I felt that really it was necessary for someone to say those things because it was in the mind of thousands of people in Thailand but nobody has said it. The reception has been tremendous; people have been really excited by the Manifesto, and they have been very supportive. Of course, the other side has been very angry, but that is what I expected. People have been sending this Manifesto on and so on. What is interesting is that this Manifesto, in a Western European context, is not very progressive. It is normal. In a Thai context, however, it is explosive. I think that indicates the difference between the amount of democracy in Thailand and the amount of democracy in Britain or Western Europe.

New Mandala: The stance you put in the Manifesto was one that is an explicit critique of the King. Do you think that will become an obstacle in your campaign against the lese majeste law in Thailand?

I do not think it is an obstacle because I think the whole situation in Thailand has reached what I would describe as a civil war. It might not be a violent civil war, but it is a civil war of ideas between two sections of society. And the Red Shirts section is rapidly becoming republican. So, really, people want to move beyond just fighting Lese Majeste, and talk about political reform. I think people are ready for that. Moreover, my Manifesto is not necessarily just a critique of the King, it is a critique of how the monarchy system is used in Thailand. This is because I do not believe the King planned the Coup. I don’t believe that the King is necessarily even the most powerful person in Thailand. I think that the military, and those that surround themselves and legitimise what they’re doing by claiming royal patronage, are those who really have power in Thailand. It (the Manifesto) is more of a critique of them and their use of the monarchy.

New Mandala: So, do you think anyone in Thailand can have control over the monarchy?

Professor Giles Ungpakorn: I am not sure what you mean by controlling the monarchy. I see the military and the conservative elites in Thailand as being around the monarchy, using the legitimacy of the monarchy for their own interests. And the monarchy is happy to be in that situation as well. But the monarchy is not necessarily the one who plans things, and is also not necessarily the most powerful part of that group.

The King

New Mandala:Has your view on the Thai monarchy changed over time? What was your view on the Thai monarchy before the 19September coup in comparison to your current view?

Professor Giles Ungpakorn: When I went back to Thailand to work in 1996-7, I was someone who did not really agree with the monarchy system, I did not really agree with having the Queen in Britain. But I was more indifferent to it, and would tolerate it. It (the monarchy at that time) did not really bother me. But, what really started to bother me was the increased promotion of the King in such wild and over the top ways; for example, the promotion that all people have to wear yellow shirts. Since this was done during the Thaksin government, I personally believe that Thaksin is also the royalist. But I think that the last straw for me was the coup d’état.

New Mandala:If you could have an audience with King Bhumibol, one on one, what would you want to tell him?

Professor Giles Ungpakorn: <laughs> I’m not sure it would be that useful or that we would have a useful dialogue. But let me answer it like this. I think that if Thailand has to have a monarchy, it has to be a proper constitutional monarchy that doesn’t interfere in politics or a monarchy that isn’t brought into politics by other people. The military should not intervene in Thai politics and it shouldn’t intervene by claiming legitimacy from the King. I think that the King is now in such a position that he could, for example, make statement about the injustice that occurred when three people were executed because the death of his brother. He could do that without looking bad for him. It would actually look better for him. He could come out and defend democracy. But I think it’s really too late to change his mind about these things.

New Mandala:Do you think the monarchy is now feeling insecure about the situation so that they moved in support of the yellow shirt, and reached the point that democracy and monarchy cannot get along like in the past?

Professor Giles Ungpakorn: Yes, I think there’s a lot of insecurity. I think that the monarchy must be feeling insecure. Even more important, I think that the military and those that have in the past enjoyed undemocratic power but claimed legitimacy from the monarchy are really very, very scared that when this King dies, their legitimacy will evaporate because they are not going to be able to claim the same legitimacy from the Crown Prince. Now, it is beyond my understanding why they have chosen this path of not only promoting the King which will then result in such a difference when the Crown Prince comes out… and of using lese majeste in this way. And bringing the monarchy into politics because if I was a royalist, I would do all in my power to make the monarchy like the British monarchy because that would to be the only way you could ensure it lasted. But they seem to be doing the exact opposite and I do not understand this. And, perhaps, it’s a sign of complete disintegration in the old order.

22 Responses

“”Even more important, I think that the military and those that have in the past enjoyed undemocratic power but claimed legitimacy from the monarchy are really very, very scared that when this King dies, their legitimacy will evaporate because they are not going to be able to claim the same legitimacy from the Crown Prince.”

I think this statement gets to the primary motivation for the coup; no way were the anti-Thakin elites going to take the chance that Thaksin might still be in power when the King dies. At the time I thought that might be sensible, because it would have put Thaksin on course for his goal of unopposed power and a single-party state. Having seen how things have gone since I have changed my mind, about the coup at any rate, and I think that Yellow Shirt attempts to portray the Reds as all about returning Thaksin to power have become less and less convincing, with Professor Ungpakorn’s efforts being helpful in that regard.

Moreover, my Manifesto is not necessarily just a critique of the King, it is a critique of how the monarchy system is used in Thailand. This is because I do not believe the King planned the Coup. I don’t believe that the King is necessarily even the most powerful person in Thailand. I think that the military, and those that surround themselves and legitimise what they’re doing by claiming royal patronage, are those who really have power in Thailand. It (the Manifesto) is more of a critique of them and their use of the monarchy.

I wish that Giles’ manifesto had skipped the criticism of HM and stuck to the real point of contention. You cannot have it both ways: claiming to want HM the King out of politics and then criticizing him for not being active on the side you’re interested in. Neither politicians nor political scientists seem able to keep themselves from trying to use HM for their own ends.

As well, Giles’ harsh, unnecessary criticism of HM left the folks who signed “his” petition in a very awkward position in Thailand. Not everyone can pick up and fly home to Oxford. The folks who signed the petition were not making Giles their spokesman, or even agreeing with all he had said and stood for up to that point. They were calling for an end to the lese majeste law, as HM the King has himself done, specifically on the occasion of his birthday speech in December 2005. But Giles’ manifesto has played them into the hands of the opposition. And his criticism of HM in his manifesto cast a shadow over the very good points he made that followed.

Giles missed an opportunity to stand with HM the King against lese majeste, and I think that would have struck a resonant note in Thailand and made his protest much more effective, if perhaps personally less satisfying.

I wish he had pointed out the blatant act of lese majeste the PAD committed when they made HM use the servants’ entrance of the palace to attend to his sister’s funeral ceremony. An act is worth a thousand words, and the PAD displayed their contempt for HM the King at that point as no one had before. Giles certainly had an audience at that point and I think he missed a golden opportunity to point out the sheer hypocrisy of the PAD/Democrat putsch..

Well, hindsight is always 20/20. Good luck to Giles in the UK, and to everyone in Thailand. If an election is ever again held here things will be put right again.

“I think that the King is now in such a position that he could, for example, make statement about the injustice that occurred when three people were executed because the death of his brother. He could do that without looking bad for him. It would actually look better for him. He could come out and defend democracy. But I think it’s really too late to change his mind about these things.”

John Francis Lee:
As you said:” Giles’ harsh, unnecessary criticism of HM left the folks who signed “his” petition in a very awkward position in Thailand”

There’s at least one who didn’t feel that way. Somkiat Tangmano from Midnight University website had reinstate his “signing” Giles petition, though he didn’t agree with all of Giles “manifesto”. I do support Somkiat’s stance, the petition is about the LM law , not the institution. I do admire his stance for the freedom of speech, even for the one that he didn’t agree with.

I disagree with John Francis Lee. Giles has long argued that the monarchy is less important than some others claim – recall his rather odd paper that attacked so-called neo-Riggsians, where he lumped together such different authors as Handley, McCargo, Hewison and Connors. That approach seemed to downplay the political and economic significance of the palace. By now acknowledging the political significance of the monarchy he has taken the discussion of the “institution” to a different plane. That was long overdue.

Ji:I think that the military, and those that surround themselves and legitimise what they’re doing by claiming royal patronage, are those who really have power in Thailand.

Ji expressed such view on the monarchy over a year ago, when he was trying to justify his ‘song mai aw’ stance, arguing the monarchy / the King (he used the terms interchangeably) doesn’t really have much power. The imlication : to call on the activists, as I do, to focus on the issue of monarchy, was wrong and unnecessary, since it doesn’t have much power and also it was no different from Thaksin anyway. It’s regretable that even now when he has abandoned that miataken stance and ’embraced’ (figuratively and literally on the stage) ‘The Red Shirts’, he still continue to express such silly view.

Ji would do well to ponder such questions:

Is Prem, acknowledged even by some PAD leaders to be THE instigator of the coup, part of the monarchy? He retired from the military some 30 years ago and lost his PM post 21 years ago. Does Ji know of any ex-Command in Chief, living or dead, who after retiremnet from both military and political posts still have such power to instigate a coup? Ji’s totally wrong-headed approach to the issue of the power of the monarchy stems from his defining ‘power’ very narrowly, as something like a capacity to ‘order’ people to do bits and pieces of daily routine, e.g. a politician or a senior bureacrat issue orders to subordinates or even the parliament or cabinet passing piece of legistlation. Of course, the king / monarchy doesn’t have this kind of power.

But ponder this: Could anyone else ‘set off’ the judiciary on the so-called ‘Tulakan Phiwat’?

The wrong approach to the issue of the monarchy led Ji to many silly conclusions about the coup itself, expressed by the title of his book : A Coup for the Rich. Has there been any coup that is not ‘for the Rich’? To say that the 19Sep coup is the ‘Coup for the Rich’ is to say nothing. It cannot even be said that this is ‘general feature’ that the Sep Coup shares with all other coups, since if all coup are for the Rich, it’s meaningless to call this coup one for the rich. The task of any analysis of something (a coup, an event, a political party, etc) is to find its differentia specifica In fact, to characterise the Sep Coup as ‘coup for the Rich’ is also misleading in the extreme. Was Thaksin the target of the coup, one of the richest man in history? His cabinet and backers were also super-rich tycoons.

Finally, another piece of ‘puzzle’ for Ji to ponder: If the ‘military’ so powerful or was really the one that is most important in this coup, why was it that they couldn’t find one among themselve to rise to the PM job? Was it accident that Surayut appointed PM? What was he other than a ‘Nayok pra rat cha than’?

Great interview. Akarn Ji was one of FACT’s early signers. FACT and I personally signed Ji’s petition. I would certainly call Ji a friend, colleague and comrade; however, I don’t agree much with his politics! Like Ajarn Somkiat, the petition was about free expression and unjust law. I would not be surprised to find Ajarn Somsak there, too!

An essential point no one has yet raised is precisely what constituted lese majeste in A Coup for the Rich. If the police ever told Ajarn Ji what words/phrases/sentences/paragraphs…concepts were illegal under Article 112, we should know about it. I suspect that, like Saw Sivaraksa, Ji was indicted solely for referencing The King Never Smiles. Perhaps this can be covered in Part 2.

BTW, if you’re in need of some horrification over the sad state of our country, have a look at the lese majeste thread at 2Bangkok.com. Yikes!

[…] issues about the future of UDD and its support among sections of the Thai intelligentsia. In his recent interview with New Mandala, Giles Ji Ungpakorn described what he viewed as the morphing of the UDD/red shirt […]

The red shirts and their sponsor, Thaksin, are just as happy to use the Lese Majeste and criminal defamations laws against their rivals as politicians of other stripes. Remember the Far Eastern Review correspondents who were charged with Lese Majeste for publishing an article critical of Thaksin, not to mention the criminal defamation suit he filed against Supinya. It is hard to imagine any move growing out of the red shirts to reform these laws.

Portman: the FEER case needs a little more information than you provide. I am not convinced that there wasn’t pressure on Thaksin to push this case – I am sure that one or other of the FEER people involved could explain – but my memory is that the problem was commenting on the palace and some members of the royal family “dealing” with Thaksin. Not sure this is adequately summarised as “for publishing an article critical of Thaksin.” You might also recall that Giles has been teh subject of LM and defamation cases.

Quote from The Committee to Protect Journalists re the 2001 FEER LM incident: “Problems began to surface in January after the Dow Jones–owned Far Eastern Economic Review published a short article about tensions between Thaksin and the country’s revered monarch, King Bumibol Adulyadej. Police banned the issue and threatened to expel the magazine’s two Bangkok correspondents, claiming that the pair had violated Thailand’s tough lèse majesté laws, which forbid public discussion of internal palace issues and ban critical commentary about the royal family. The royal palace did not publicly complain about the article, and many observers believe the magazine’s frequently harsh criticism of Thaksin motivated the action.”

Perhaps Thaksin was under pressure, as FEER’s comments could have been interpreted as far more offensive than Harry Nicolaides’ unreadable and unread twaddle, but no doubt he found the LM law very convenient in that instance. There is no reason to suspect that, if restored to power, he would not see it again as a useful tool to have in his arsenal to silence critics or that the red shirts, if they ever evolve any political platform other than restoring their sponsor to power and getting their own snouts back into the trough, would see it any differently. Meanwhile, Thaksin is still instructing his lawyers to file defamation suits in Thailand, indicating that he retains faith in the Thai legal system that he has fled.

The debate on the lèse–majesté law quickly becomes clouded by thoughts of and respect for HM King Bhumipol Adulyadej and that should not be so, at least not for the “obvious” reasons..

The lèse–majesté law has nothing to do with HM or with any Thai king. The Thai King has no say in its application. He can only act after the fact to undo the damages done in his name. In this sense the lèse–majesté law enables routine acts of lèse–majesté by those enforcing it.

In truth the lèse–majesté law is in place to provide those in power, whoever they may be at the time, with unassailable grounds on which to imprison people without trial and to prevent discussion of their actions in doing so. This is not unlike the powers wielded by the Islamic Taleban today or the Christian inquisitions that occur from time to time in the West. Even when sufficient evidence of the authorities’ abuses reaches broad enough dissemination for HM the King to act and to release their victims from the grasp of their enemies in government those so abused will still have served months or years of their “sentence” prior to their finally being tried, sentenced, and subsequently freed by royal decree.

After a long discussion of the history of the lèse–majesté laws in “Ramification and Re-Sacralization of the Lèse Majesté Law in Thailand”, Somchai Preechasilpakul and David Streckfuss made three suggestions to bring the lèse–majesté more nearly in line with its avowed purpose. One cut to the heart of the matter : add the condition that “Prosecution of any defamation pursuant to Section 112 shall be initiated only by order of the King or with his consent”

As it is now the lèse–majesté law, despite its title, is nothing but a carte blanche means of arbitrary oppression of the government’s political opponents the very use of which amounts to an act of lèse–majesté itself.

John Francis Lee #20. It is hard to imagine that HM is at all happy with the situation but also hard to see a viable solution in the Thai context where even suggesting reducing the force of the LM law may be interpreted as LM. I think Edward VII put an end to criminal libel suits on behalf of British royalty with his famous saying, “Publish and be damned.” Thais find the way the British royals are treated by tabloids as unthinkable, although it certainly prevents them from straying too far from what is acceptable to British public opinion, thereby actively helping prolong their relevance. Asking the monarchy to approve charges directly is not the answer, although that works in Norway, but some sort of committee, say at privy council type of level, might offer a solution and avoid LM being used as a political tool which, as you say, is arguably LM in and of itself .